2007

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0116 Thursday, 8 February 2007
[1] From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 7 Feb 2007 20:05:16 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0102 Thorpe Query
[2] From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 7 Feb 2007 14:05:22 -0500
Subj: SHK 18.0102 Thorpe Query
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 7 Feb 2007 20:05:16 -0500
Subject: 18.0102 Thorpe Query
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0102 Thorpe Query
Sorry to be (apparently) on Gerald Downs's side on one point, but it
seems to me that Shakespeare was offended by the attribution in the 1612
edition of *The Passionate Pilgrim* of the two poems by Heywood that
were added to that edition. Heywood was, naturally, also angered by the
misattribution--"which," he says, "may put the world in opinion I might
steal from (Shakespeare); and to do himself right, hath since published
them in his own name; but as I must acknowledge my lines not worthy his
patronage under whom he hat published them, so the author I know much
offended with M. Jaggard (that altogether unknown to him) to make so
bold with his name." Nothing there about the earlier edition so far as I
can see.
--Bob G.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 7 Feb 2007 14:05:22 -0500
Subject: Thorpe Query
Comment: SHK 18.0102 Thorpe Query
I don't mean to prolong this, but . . .
My main point was that Gerald Downs's post was misleading, appearing to
call into question my work for this list and Peter Holland's scholarship
as represented by his comment in the Thorpe thread.
In that post, Holland wrote, "In 1599 William Jaggard published the
second edition of the collection of poems called The Passionate Pilgrim
(the date of the first edition is uncertain) which the title-page
attributed to Shakespeare." This is indeed an accurate statement. He
went on "much to Shakespeare's annoyance that Jaggard, as Thomas Heywood
noted, 'altogether unknowne to him . presumed to make so bold with his
name'." Another accurate statement.
Downs pointed out that "Heywood's postscript epistle in _An Apology for
Actors_ was in reference to the third edition of _The Passionate
Pilgrim_, each publications of 1612, thirteen years after the second
edition of PP, during which interim recorded annoyance is missing,
though only five of the twenty poems of 1599 are known Shakespeare." He
then recounts that Schoenbaum has the dates right in _Documentary Life_"
and then he asserts "though his inference that 'Apparently Shakespeare
complained too, but privately and to the printer' has no extant basis."
The reason that Schoenbaum included this document was for Heywood's
allusion to Shakespeare: the allusion is the "extant basis," Shakespeare
did not have a Boswell.
After attempting to call into question Schoenbaum's scholarship, Downs
accuses Holland of repeating "information from _Shakespeare's Lives_,
where Schoenbaum describes the 1612 goings on as 1599 goings on, and
where he misquotes Heywood much as Holland does." Yesterday, I
reproduced the passage from <I>Shakespeare's Lives</I> to which Downs
refers:
><I>The Passionate Pilgrim</I>, printed in 1599 as "<I>By W.
>Shakespeare</I>" consists of twenty poems, of which several
>have been identified as the work of other writers, One injured
>party, Thomas Heywood (two of his verse epistles had been
>purloined), complained angrily, and let it be known that
>Shakespeare was "much offended" with the stationer, William
>Jaggard, who "altogether unknown to him, presumed to make
>so bold with his name." Apparently Shakespeare protested
>effectively, for Jaggard removed his name from the title-page.
Granted Schoenbaum does not mention in <I>Shakespeare's Lives</I> that
Heywood's complaint was in regards to the third edition of PP, an
omission later rectified in <I>William Shakespeare: A Documentary
Life</I>. However, Schoenbaum does include the fact that Jaggard, as he
also mentions in <I>Documentary Life</I>, "cancelled the title-page and
substituted a new one omitting Shakespeare's name," which occurred after
the publication of the third edition of PP. To Downs, the statement from
<I>Shakespeare's Lives</I> that "Apparently Shakespeare protested
effectively, for Jaggard removed his name from the title-page"
represents a purposeful example of Schoenbaum's describing "the 1612
goings on as 1599 goings on," and thereby is an indictment of
Schoenbaum's scholarship. Similarly, Downs is accusing Peter Holland of
repeating incorrect information and also that Schoenbaum and Holland
misquote Heywood. This egregious misquoting involves not including an
opening parentheses mark before "that" and substituting a comma for the
closing parenthesis after "to him" in Schoenbaum's case and a period
being used similar to an ellipsis in Holland's. Holland explained that
he repunctuated to make the passage clearer. Schoenbaum's comma and
Holland's period surely seem preferable to "altogether unknown to him)
presumed to make so bold with his name." It seems to me that Downs's is
misleading and is an exaggeration of the information presented.
Yesterday, I discussed Gerald E. Downs's last paragraph in his post, and
there is no reason to revisit what I said then.
As for Bob Grumman's "that Shakespeare was offended by the attribution
in the 1612 edition of *The Passionate Pilgrim* of the two poems by
Heywood that were added to that edition," let me begin by quoting in
full the passage included in <I>Documentary Life</I>:
Here likewise, I must necessarily insert a manifest iniury done me in
that worke, by taking the two Epistles of <I>Paris</I> to <I>Helen</I>,
and <I>Helen</I> to <I>Paris</I>, and printing them in a lesse volume,
vnder the name of another, which may put the world in opinion I might
steale them from him; and hee doe himselfe right, hath since published
them in his owne name: but as I must acknowledge my lines not worthy his
patronage, vnder whom he had publisht them, so the Author I know much
offended with M. <I>Iaggard</I> (that altogether vnknowne to him)
presumed to make so bold with his name.
The fact is that Jaggard made so bold with Shakespeare's name in both
1599 and 1612 and so must have offended the "Author." Granted Heywood's
two poems that were published under Shakespeare's name were published in
1612, but other poet's poems were included in both 1599 and 1612, and
there is no reason not to conclude that Shakespeare was angered by both
instances of the misuse of his name. One must, however, conclude that
Shakespeare's complaint in 1612 resulted in the cancellation of the
third edition's title-page and its replacement that omitted
Shakespeare's name.
Hardy M. Cook
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.